Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Agree with Spud.

Me too .. WTF, it is a cold day in #^$@

Yeah, I'm not advocating it. But since it's a cosmetic feature anyway, I don't really care either way. If its the "bad beat" that's really causing the consternation, there's a way to get rid of it without changing the game functions in a meaningful way. It's probably better than just having one name for teams that have reached the signability threshold, because those labels actually do mean something before the recruit signs.

In 2.0, if I had an A+ team, there were MANY recruiting periods where I would have al of my 4 and 5 star guys considering only me by 8 PM on the first day and no one would challenge me for them because they were afraid if they got in a battle that they would look weak, and risk the players they were going after. The fact that if you can at least get to high you have an outside shot, combined with the knowledge that no one can do more than 20 HVs and a CV makes it worth trying to battle for top recruits.

I really like the battles that have developed. I recently battled A+ Wisconsin with my A+ Oklahoma team for MR. Basketball Kansas. I think it just takes a little getting used to.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Agree with Spud.

Me too .. WTF, it is a cold day in #^$@

Yeah, I'm not advocating it. But since it's a cosmetic feature anyway, I don't really care either way. If its the "bad beat" that's really causing the consternation, there's a way to get rid of it without changing the game functions in a meaningful way. It's probably better than just having one name for teams that have reached the signability threshold, because those labels actually do mean something before the recruit signs.

And I am in the same camp with you on this. If they made high and very high one larger group, that would solve the issue of people feeling like they lost by the roll of the dice. The drawback is that you would have less idea if you were behind.

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/24/2016 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Agree with Spud.

Me too .. WTF, it is a cold day in #^$@

Yeah, I'm not advocating it. But since it's a cosmetic feature anyway, I don't really care either way. If its the "bad beat" that's really causing the consternation, there's a way to get rid of it without changing the game functions in a meaningful way. It's probably better than just having one name for teams that have reached the signability threshold, because those labels actually do mean something before the recruit signs.

And I am in the same camp with you on this. If they made high and very high one larger group, that would solve the issue of people feeling like they lost by the roll of the dice. The drawback is that you would have less idea if you were behind.

I would certainly rather know if I am behind or not .. but I can live with it either way.

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/24/2016 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Agree with Spud.

Me too .. WTF, it is a cold day in #^$@

Yeah, I'm not advocating it. But since it's a cosmetic feature anyway, I don't really care either way. If its the "bad beat" that's really causing the consternation, there's a way to get rid of it without changing the game functions in a meaningful way. It's probably better than just having one name for teams that have reached the signability threshold, because those labels actually do mean something before the recruit signs.

And I am in the same camp with you on this. If they made high and very high one larger group, that would solve the issue of people feeling like they lost by the roll of the dice. The drawback is that you would have less idea if you were behind.

That would be a terrible idea. So what if you are High and get grouped with the Very Highs into one large groups and THINK you are even and stop spending?

One large group leaves everyone in even more of a black box where you have no idea where you stand or if what you are doing is correct.

(wrote this before reading Hughes saying the same thing)

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/24/2016 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Agree with Spud.

Me too .. WTF, it is a cold day in #^$@

Yeah, I'm not advocating it. But since it's a cosmetic feature anyway, I don't really care either way. If its the "bad beat" that's really causing the consternation, there's a way to get rid of it without changing the game functions in a meaningful way. It's probably better than just having one name for teams that have reached the signability threshold, because those labels actually do mean something before the recruit signs.

And I am in the same camp with you on this. If they made high and very high one larger group, that would solve the issue of people feeling like they lost by the roll of the dice. The drawback is that you would have less idea if you were behind.

And that was exactly what Seble discussed in the beta forums. He came down on the side of providing two categories of possibly successful teams, named H and VH, since that gives more info than one big category. With one big category you get precious little idea of where you stand, and I think that even some of the guys who think they would prefer that would find out the lack of info would bug them.

Like I said the verdict will be the sub numbers. Pkoop and Hughes can spew all the bs spins they want to but the bottom line is that the majority of people won't sign up to play this game anymore for the same reasons that I've given throughout this thread.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Like I said the verdict will be the sub numbers. Pkoop and Hughes can spew all the bs spins they want to but the bottom line is that the majority of people won't sign up to play this game anymore for the same reasons that I've given throughout this thread.

You have no way of knowing that. You could be right but I doubt it.

Edit - I should clarify I'm referring to new coaches coming in. I know a lot of current 2.0 users will leave.

I am getting quite a few new coaches asking for advice, which is great. If we can help them succeed, the game will hopefully grow.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Like I said the verdict will be the sub numbers. Pkoop and Hughes can spew all the bs spins they want to but the bottom line is that the majority of people won't sign up to play this game anymore for the same reasons that I've given throughout this thread.

So, you are now not only a disgruntled WIS coach, but a fortuneteller as well? Looks like this game has increased you employment opportunities at least.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/25/2016 5:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Like I said the verdict will be the sub numbers. Pkoop and Hughes can spew all the bs spins they want to but the bottom line is that the majority of people won't sign up to play this game anymore for the same reasons that I've given throughout this thread.

So, you are now not only a disgruntled WIS coach, but a fortuneteller as well? Looks like this game has increased you employment opportunities at least.

Unfortunately I have some good experience with games that I've enjoyed playing dying off and the writing is on the wall for this one.

The new coaches will leave too once they see what crap they've signed up for. Within a year they'll either be performing another update or HD will go the way of clutch dynasty.

Currently 50% think something is crap and 50% think something is good.

Therefore everyone in the future will think it's crap.

Agree to disagree here.

(totally made up these % of course)

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 9:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/25/2016 5:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Like I said the verdict will be the sub numbers. Pkoop and Hughes can spew all the bs spins they want to but the bottom line is that the majority of people won't sign up to play this game anymore for the same reasons that I've given throughout this thread.

So, you are now not only a disgruntled WIS coach, but a fortuneteller as well? Looks like this game has increased you employment opportunities at least.

Unfortunately I have some good experience with games that I've enjoyed playing dying off and the writing is on the wall for this one.

The new coaches will leave too once they see what crap they've signed up for. Within a year they'll either be performing another update or HD will go the way of clutch dynasty.

That may or may not be true. Prognosticating about the demise of this game or WIS in general is not really helpful to people who are looing to learn how to play.

You get to have your opinion and you get to decide if you want to play the game any longer. We all know what you think about it .. you have made it perfectly and unmistakably clear.

Thanks for the input.

I always hope other veteran coaches give it a chance, I don't like dismissing people; that's why I engage people in these discussions. If you can change your mindset so that you're not expecting the things we'd been conditioned to expect by the previous version, I really believe a lot of people have and will come around. But I also understand that some people simply will not enjoy a game where they can't manufacture a pre-determined outcome. I don't want the game catered to them, but while I hope they stick around, I understand many will not.

The D1 battles in 3.0 end up being a lot of fun - I've seen a lot of people acknowledging this, even as they're still struggling to adjust to other aspects. Since we're prognosticating now, my 2c is that the success of 3.0 will likely depend in large part on getting a clear and faster path to D1 competitiveness. The biggest hesitation, among friends I had recommended the game to, was the idea that it would take real life years to get to a Big 6 D1 school. I think step 1, making mid-majors more attractive and hypothetically competitive, is good. Now let people get to that level *if they choose* after 2-3 good D2 seasons, and let them at least compete for Big 6 openings after 2-3 good mid-major seasons, and this game gets more attractive to more people.